billvon 2,467 #1 March 17, 2010 From the CSMonitor: By Eoin O'Carroll The Christian Science Monitor August 28, 2009 Are climate change deniers like creationists? Looks like it's time to bring back Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan: The US Chamber of Commerce wants to subject the science of climate change to a "Scopes monkey trial." The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that the world's largest business lobby is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a public hearing to defend its endangerment finding, which determined that greenhouse gases are pollutants that pose a threat to public health and welfare and can therefore be regulated by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. The Times describes what the Chamber has in mind: Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect. "It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial." In a press release, the advocacy group Republicans for Environmental Protection bristled at the Chamber's apparent swipe at creationists, and what the group called "a cynical attempt to pit science against religion." "The Scopes trial is a false comparison. Regardless of what one believes about the earth's origins, the facts about the global carbon cycle do not change. Excess carbon is stored away in coal and oil deposits. By burning large quantities of coal and oil, we release that excess carbon back into the atmosphere, upsetting the natural balance," said David Jenkins, the group's vice president for government and political affairs. "The chamber's efforts are both imprudent and impious." Earlier this year, Mr. Jenkins penned an article titled "God’s Climate Plan" which argues that Christians should be concerned about climate change. If the Chamber is indeed taking a shot at creationism, they're probably alienating many core supporters. According to a 2008 Gallup poll, some 60 percent of Republicans believe that humans were created "as is" within the last 10,000 years, compared with 38 percent of Democrats. This belief is soundly refuted by the overwhelming empirical evidence that shows that humans evolved over millions of years. But if you flip the Chamber's analogy – comparing pundits who reject the science of climate change to those who reject the science of evolution – the comparison becomes decidedly apt. Both groups willfully ignore mountains of firmly established scientific evidence. Both groups falsely portray the scientific community as divided over settled science. Both groups make spurious appeals to academic freedom, arguing that "both sides" of the debate should be presented as though they possess equal merit. And both groups derive most of their funding from privately funded think tanks, having scant presence in the science departments of accredited colleges and universities. The motivations of those who deny climate change and who deny evolution are probably very different. But in some cases, it's the very same people who deny both phenomena. Here are just a few examples: Steven Milloy, a prominent climate change denier and "junk science" contributor to Fox News, told the Cato Institute in 2007 that "[e]xplanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the stage of hypothesis or conjecture." Roy Spencer, a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, author of the 2008 book "Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor," and the "official climatologist" of Rush Limbaugh's EIB network, wrote in 2005 that "intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism." Actor and commentator Ben Stein, whose 2008 film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed claimed that belief in evolution led directly to the Nazi Holocaust, asserted on Fox News this year that "global warming is by no means proved." And Arthur Robinson, the senior author of the Oregon Petition, that list of some 31,000 self-described scientists who deny the existence of convincing evidence of global warming, is also a signatory to the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" circulated by the Discovery Institute, the primary think tank promoting Intelligent Design theory. The 1925 trial of John Scopes seems to have done little to change the minds of American creationists (it took another four decades for Tennessee's anti-evolution law to be repealed, and the debate over teaching evolutionary biology in public schools is still very much alive). Similarly, it's unlikely that a modern-day trial of climate science would be anything more than a tendentious circus. But climate change, unlike evolution, is happening on a time scale that humans can directly observe. If the Chamber of Commerce has its way and action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions is delayed, we can expect that the effects of these emissions will be widely felt and acknowledged by those who will inherit the climate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #2 March 17, 2010 Pointing out the bad behavior of others is not a defense of you own bad behavior. BTW I give credence to evolution or any other scientifically sound theory for that matter. On the other hand, I don’t believe in angels, devils, tooth fairies or agw. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #3 March 17, 2010 "Climate Change"? What happened to "global warming" Oh, that's right-can't keep sucking money with that catchphrase with all the dodgy data coming out. God I hope Orwell is still required reading in high schoolsYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #4 March 17, 2010 Quote"Climate Change"? What happened to "global warming" Oh, that's right-can't keep sucking money with that catchphrase with all the dodgy data coming out. God I hope Orwell is still required reading in high schools +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #5 March 17, 2010 Quote"Climate Change"? What happened to "global warming" Oh, that's right-can't keep sucking money with that catchphrase with all the dodgy data coming out. God I hope Orwell is still required reading in high schools Nothing happened to global warming. However, since not ALL geographic locations will be warmer all (or even most) of the time, imbeciles, idiots and morons would use particularly snowy or cold months in their silly denials. Climate change is a more accurate description and less amenable to imbecilic denials. The laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captain1976 0 #6 March 17, 2010 A review of history shows how much climate changes and that current conditions are not unique in any way. The real revelation is the degree to which people have been misled on the issue. But where there is money and politicians (dysfunctional people who can't get a real job), there is sure to be fraud. Any climatic change has nothing to do with people and their use/abuse of the earth. We couldn't do it if we tried. What I fail to understand is that people actually believe what they are being told. The US Government has no credibility as proven time and time again. My only concern is how natural climate change effects skydiving weather.You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #7 March 17, 2010 QuoteQuote"Climate Change"? What happened to "global warming" Oh, that's right-can't keep sucking money with that catchphrase with all the dodgy data coming out. God I hope Orwell is still required reading in high schools Nothing happened to global warming. However, since not ALL geographic locations will be warmer all (or even most) of the time, imbeciles, idiots and morons would use particularly snowy or cold months in their silly denials. Climate change is a more accurate description and less amenable to imbecilic denials. The laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed. There seems to be no problem with using heat events as 'proof', but cold events are "just weather" - isn't that an AMAZING coincidence?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #8 March 17, 2010 QuoteAny climatic change has nothing to do with people and their use/abuse of the earth. We couldn't do it if we tried. Now there's a faith-based comment! On what objective grounds could you possibly assert that it is impossible that humans could affect climate even if they deliberately tried? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #9 March 17, 2010 I for one would like to see a full blown examination in an adversarial trial like theatre. The problem is of course to find a non-biased judge. While the evidence of increased CO2, and the models certainly predict poor outcomes, no one has satisfactorily (to me anyway) explained why the medieval warm period was one of prosperity in Europe and North America. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #10 March 17, 2010 Not repealed, just not understood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #11 March 17, 2010 Might be more convincing if the models could be reliably back-tested."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #12 March 17, 2010 QuoteMight be more convincing if the models could be reliably back-tested. Give them a little more time to work the data - you know, revising the 30's downward, getting rid of the 'warm blip' in the 40's, stuff like that - and I'm sure they'll be able to show how there was a HUGE surge of man-made CO2 around 1000AD (see 'histo5.png', above).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #13 March 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteMight be more convincing if the models could be reliably back-tested. Give them a little more time to work the data - you know, revising the 30's downward, getting rid of the 'warm blip' in the 40's, stuff like that - and I'm sure they'll be able to show how there was a HUGE surge of man-made CO2 around 1000AD (see 'histo5.png', above). This is why a court like setting might be useful. The data cooking scandal of last year has the ability to do huge amounts of damage to the general population's confidence in the scientific method. We already seem to have a population that is retreating into religious superstition, both here in North America and abroad.The way forward must be scrutinized for veracity every step of the way. The forces of ignorance are ever vigilant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #14 March 17, 2010 Quote The forces of ignorance are ever vigilant. You are, of course, responding to such a one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #15 March 17, 2010 QuoteNot repealed, just not understood. Thermodynamics is very well understood. Some PEOPLE don't understand thermodynamics, and they are prominent in the denier community.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #16 March 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote"Climate Change"? What happened to "global warming" Oh, that's right-can't keep sucking money with that catchphrase with all the dodgy data coming out. God I hope Orwell is still required reading in high schools Nothing happened to global warming. However, since not ALL geographic locations will be warmer all (or even most) of the time, imbeciles, idiots and morons would use particularly snowy or cold months in their silly denials. Climate change is a more accurate description and less amenable to imbecilic denials. The laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed. There seems to be no problem with using heat events as 'proof', but cold events are "just weather" - isn't that an AMAZING coincidence? You appear to be making a point contrary to the point you think you are making.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 March 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteNot repealed, just not understood. Thermodynamics is very well understood. Some PEOPLE don't understand thermodynamics, and they are prominent in the denier community. The historical record is very well understood. Some PEOPLE don't understand the historical record, and they are prominent in the alarmist community.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #18 March 17, 2010 QuoteThe laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed. And the reality of politically motivated, grant sucking researchers is still in full force too.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captain1976 0 #19 March 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteThe laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed. And the reality of politically motivated, grant sucking researchers is still in full force too. You said it. Most of this garbage science comes from that sector who's main goal is to keep the government money coming in creating job security. Thus giving Scientists the same credibility as the US Government.You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #20 March 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe laws of thermodynamics have not been repealed. And the reality of politically motivated, grant sucking researchers is still in full force too. You said it. Most of this garbage science comes from that sector who's main goal is to keep the government money coming in creating job security. Thus giving Scientists the same credibility as the US Government. Science, unlike religion and politics, has a self-correcting mechanism. So far, no-one has found any flaws in the laws of thermodynamics, and lots of people have tried.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #21 March 17, 2010 QuoteScience, unlike religion and politics, has a self-correcting mechanism. Which is starting to function on this issue judging by the reports coming out of slanted data and bad science from the fear mongers. Problem is that the global warming activist are so emotionally (and financially) invested in the the whole glaciers going world's ending mindset that they are unwilling to consider that they may be looking at the wrong picture or looking at the picture wrongly.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildcard451 0 #22 March 17, 2010 QuoteQuote The forces of ignorance are ever vigilant. You are, of course, responding to such a one. Jesus, blatant much? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captain1976 0 #23 March 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteScience, unlike religion and politics, has a self-correcting mechanism. Which is starting to function on this issue judging by the reports coming out of slanted data and bad science from the fear mongers. Problem is that the global warming activist are so emotionally (and financially) invested in the the whole glaciers going world's ending mindset that they are unwilling to consider that they may be looking at the wrong picture or looking at the picture wrongly. Yes, sounds like LiberalsYou live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #24 March 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteScience, unlike religion and politics, has a self-correcting mechanism. Which is starting to function on this issue judging by the reports coming out of slanted data and bad science from the fear mongers. Problem is that the global warming activist are so emotionally (and financially) invested in the the whole glaciers going world's ending mindset that they are unwilling to consider that they may be looking at the wrong picture or looking at the picture wrongly. You overstate the problems by an order of magnitude. The preponderance of evidence still shows, by far, that the planet is warming. The shrill trumpeting by the deniers about a few bad apples has deafened you. The laws of thermodynamics remain intact and operational.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #25 March 17, 2010 QuoteThe laws of thermodynamics remain intact and operational. And the interpretation of the data remains subject to the prejudice of who's writing the checkYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)